Factors that influence scope-of-practice decisions of early-career family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore perceptions of early-career family physicians on the personal, educational, organizational, community, and system factors that had influenced their scope-of-practice decisions and to compare the similarities and differences among these factors across all 13 Canadian jurisdictions. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine early-career family physicians who were 2 to 5 years into independent practice. METHODS: Data were collected using focus groups and were analyzed using deductive and inductive analysis techniques to identify patterns in the data within and across jurisdictions. MAIN FINDINGS: Participants across all jurisdictions highlighted that personal factors (ie, interest, work-life balance and family life, financial considerations, and self-perceived competence and confidence) were most influential on scope-of-practice decisions. Educational (ie, exposure during training, mentorship), organizational (ie, collegial support), community (ie, needs), and system (ie, payment models, funding for team-based care, governance) factors also influenced decisions about scope of practice. Experiences were similar across all jurisdictions for personal factors. Differences in experiences were reported across jurisdictions for educational, organizational, community, and system factors. CONCLUSION: Decisions about scope of practice by early-career family physicians are highly influenced by personal factors followed by organizational, educational, community, and system factors. These findings suggest numerous strategies are needed to increase individuals' interest in providing comprehensive care in Canada. Educators should cultivate interest in comprehensive care among learners, strategically recruit trainees, provide targeted exposure and experiences, ensure competence and confidence are evaluated throughout and at the end of training, and introduce formal mentorship programs. Policy-makers should invest in the spread of effective team models and alternative payment models. Together, these strategies could broaden the scopes of practice of family physicians and their capacity to deliver accessible and comprehensive care to Canadians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".